The idea that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable"

CJCrawley
Sure, people see strange things moving around in the sky, big deal.

It's proof that they are intelligently-controlled craft from another planet that is conspicuously lacking.

Hence the term: Unidentified Flying Object.

I NEVER use the term in other than the classic sense.

CornShucker

Jefferton
No witness is reliable. The human brain is flawed, and can't be trusted.

Therefore, your opinion is automatically vacuous.

Yours, too! And so we spiral down into the infinite hole of inherent contradictions.

The only way out of that hole is to try to remember the simple phrase, "Does it matter?" Of course everyone's perceptions are flawed, because we are flawed creatures. The real question is, is the perception flawed in a way that matters?

Unfortunately with UFOs, because there is no good hard evidence suggesting any kind of solution (including extraterrestrial), even if a person's perception is accurate, and their description is reasonably accurate, it doesn't matter.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Blue Shift,

The problem as I see it is that there's nothing more to be done with it. A person describes a sliver flying saucer that zoomed over their head. Okay, fine. What am I supposed to do with that? I can't study it. I can't replay the event. It is of no help when trying to figure out what the thing was, who built it, or where it came from.

And yet, there are thousands of unexplained sightings—and not only that—they would seem to conform to a few basic patterns.

Such is the problem of UFOs. The phenomenon is too much to ignore, but too little to study. It makes me suspicious of ET claims. Wouldn't we have something more?

Perhaps, as Jacques Vallee would suggest, the old reports of fairies and goblins are somehow linked. Perhaps, the answer ultimately lies in the human mind. Could it create somehow physical apparitions of the subconscious? I, for one, think it's possible.

reply to posts by ZetaRediculian and MaximRecoil


As for the debate between MaximRecoil and ZetaRediculian, I would like to say that good arguments have been made on both sides.

I would like to make a single point, if I may...

Zeta Ridiculian said:

Your position is that there is no way it could be anything other than a metallic craft that moved at an extreme speed. Can you provide some information, links, literature...anything that shows how misidentification can be ruled out? Of course not and I don't expect you to.

I believe the only argument against misidentification is that all the witness reports were consistent on the details in question.
Assuming the craft was misidentified, why would all the witnesses misidentify it in the same way?

cheers all

ZetaRediculian

If you have alternate explanations of the event in mind, it is up to you to present and support them, which is the only path to creating reasonable doubt. You can't create reasonable doubt by simply throwing things at the wall hoping something will stick; doing so is tantamount to a defense lawyer randomly proclaiming in court, "Maybe the butler did it!" in an effort to direct attention away from his client, but without anything to support the claim.

Oye vey.... what exactly is on trial? That people saw something? OK. What did they see? I DON'T KNOW. There is not enough information to determine what they saw. YOU think so and that is fantastic. So I have to agree with you without question? I don't. Get over it.

edit on 24-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

Yet another edit after I'd already replied to this post.

Nothing is on trial. The trial analogy was to illustrate the concept of establishing reasonable doubt.

You don't have to do anything, but your doubt can logically be determined to be reasonable or unreasonable. There is obviously no law requiring anyone to be reasonable in their doubts.

Yeah, I've seen the ways that they brush this off. You get a dozen different stories from the same accident.

But, let's just say that, in your accident, there's a dark blue car and a red car and both took off.

Now, a few people might see the red car, a few people might see a blue car, and a few might see the whole thing.

Now, some of these folks will describe the red car as red, some as simply "dark", some as varying shades of red like brick. Others will describe the blue car as black, grey, blue. Some will see that the blue car was going too fast, or maybe see that the red car failed to make a turn signal.

My point here is that it's called unreliable because people see "completely different things" when it's really that folks see one blue side of a cube, one red side of a cube, and some see a corner.

The thing that gets me is that if the human mind is so unreliable, then their precious science is just as likely to be hogwash. Science was designed by humans, one of the steps is observation (by humans), and it's up to humans to interpret the results of experiments. If the human mind is so gigantically unreliable, then there are mountains of mistakes that can get made along the way, and most of scientific investigation might just be residing in one of the considerably large blind spots in the human mind.

If we can't trust the testimony of people to describe a simple incident with two cars, then that puts a question on even all but our simplest assumptions and pieces of knowledge.

reply to post by MaximRecoil

Also, according to your own statement, it seems that I'm not the first person to point out that you don't know what a straw man is. That should tell you something.

Actually, you are. I just think you are a troll now. Nobody is this dumb.

Uh huh. You already indicated otherwise. Don't forget that you only have 4 hours to edit your posts, so you'll need to go back and change what you said soon.

Like I said, You are a troll.

I assume you're done here in this thread?

nope. just done responding to you.

Irony alert.

ZING!

(much like the "Hitler card"; see Godwin's law)

No its nothing like that. you are a troll.

PhoenixOD
The fact that people sometimes see things they cant explain at the time is not in dispute. But when they make the assumption that its not something normal just because they cant tell what it it all becomes unreliable.
-- snip --
of course people see things they cant explain at the time. But the big problem is that if they dont eventually wor out what it was it then becomes part of the percentage of UFO's that cant be explained which other people then try to tell us MUST be visiting aliens.

edit on 22-3-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

I grew up on a small farm that was line-of-sight with another farm that had a sighting that Blue Book considered worth a three day visit and NICAP was there, too. A lawnmower that was part of the experience was found to have parts that had been magnetized. Both organizations eventually put it into that 3-5% of "unexplainable" investigations.

How do you write that off considering that there were other local sightings that happened the same week but nobody else was willing to risk the treatment that our neighbor got?

I used to frequent another board (where the member in question could never resist adding the Ph.D. to his screen name) that had a guy who said he would never believe even his own eyes! If he rounded a curve late at night and saw what appeared to be a craft other than terrestrial origin and odd beings standing in the road, his only thought would be, "What is it that is causing me to misinterpret what I am actually seeing..." Which I took to mean that he was admitting that he would be much more comfortable with accepting the fact that he was delusional than to ever admit that there might be something that he didn't understand.

You mention the percentage of the population that will go on to decide that it must have been aliens. I ask you, how arrogant does someone have to be to sit comfortably in an office somewhere in broad daylight and say to the ones that went through it, "I might not be able to tell you what you saw but I know d*mned good and well what you DIDN'T see!"???

The world (Reality) is far more strange than most are willing to believe. Refusing to consider that leaves you wide open to suddenly have everything that is the foundation of your idea of sanity fall into question. Some work through it and some turn into total nutjobs, but I'd advise you to never be so self-satisfied that you actually believe you know all there is to know. As Dean Koontz said, "God punishes us for what we can't imagine..."

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

Also, according to your own statement, it seems that I'm not the first person to point out that you don't know what a straw man is. That should tell you something.

Actually, you are.

Uh huh. You already indicated otherwise. Don't forget that you only have 4 hours to edit your posts, so you'll need to go back and change what you said soon.

I just think you are a troll now.

I'll go ahead and add "troll" to the list of terms you use despite not knowing what they mean. So far we have:

"Straw man"
"Intellectual dishonesty"
"Troll"

Nobody is this dumb.

Irony alert.

By the way, since you've played the infamous last-ditch "troll card" (much like the "Hitler card"; see Godwin's law), I assume you're done here in this thread?

reply to post by thesearchfortruth

I believe the only argument against misidentification is that all the witness reports were consistent on the details in question.
Assuming the craft was misidentified, why would all the witnesses misidentify it in the same way?

That's a fair and honest question and breath of fresh air. Thanks.

Just going on the assumption it was misidentified...not saying it was, but just assuming for the sake of argument. Let's say it was some odd cloud with some odd reflection or something. I have no idea about cloud formations so I don't know if this is possible or not. So whatever it was produced an optical illusion. Generally speaking, we all perceive these types of illusions the same way. Its pretty predictable actually. One of the most dramatic examples of "witnesses" being fooled is this video of David Blaine levitating. Watch peoples honest reactions to witnessing something unexplainable. Of course, David Blaine doesn't actually levitate.

Another fun thing to do is google illusory contours

There is also an interesting show called "Brain Games" that's on Hulu that demonstrates some of this idea of how we are fooled very easily.

Jim Oberg has also done some good work with showing how this type of thing is applied during actual sightings. It shouldn't be ignored.

Then there is the way which people can influence other peoples perceptions simply by suggesting it. For instance, there is an ambiguous object. Person A says to person B "I see a craft" Person B now sees a "craft". Its that simple. Try it sometime. Experiment on your family and friends!

Then there is memory. Recalling an event like this is bound to create memories of details that never really happened. Person A: "I Remember it spinning" Person B: "oh yeah, so do I"

Here is a great article on memory just so you know that I am not making things up. www.nybooks.com...

So even if there was a real alien craft poking holes through clouds and stuff, ALL this kind of thing STILL applies because we are humans and that is how our brains work.

How's that?

Blue Shift

CornShucker

Jefferton
No witness is reliable. The human brain is flawed, and can't be trusted.

Therefore, your opinion is automatically vacuous.

Yours, too! And so we spiral down into the infinite hole of inherent contradictions.
-- snip --
Unfortunately with UFOs, because there is no good hard evidence suggesting any kind of solution (including extraterrestrial), even if a person's perception is accurate, and their description is reasonably accurate, it doesn't matter.

Thanks! You nailed my point, exactly.

One of my "Donisms" is, "The thing about opinions is that every assh*le seems to have one".

I never state mine as fact. There any countless others that do. They're the ones that haven't caught on, yet. Kinda like when we used to take the kids on late-night drives on those incredibly humid Southern Indiana nights with all the windows down and I'd point out (usually just as the gravel ran out and it was just dirt road) that the thing to keep in mind when you are "Monster Hunting" is that, when you've found it-it's found you!!"

(Please don't be calling me a terrible parent. They ALL laugh now about how much fun we used to have...)

JimOberg
Too much time has been wasted theorizing about HOW people of different professions OUGHT to be able to perceive – as in the statement on pilots – and not on what the observational data can tell us. So naturally we’ve gotten nowhere on trying to backtrack raw perceptual reports to potential original stimuli.

edit on 24-3-2014 by JimOberg because: (no reason given)

I continue to respect not only your willingness to share what you are able of your experience but also your commonsense approach in an area where many ( understandably [imho] ) get lost in what seems to be beyond mundane explanations.

I've never forgotten our conversation about the object my family witnessed during the 2000 lunar eclipse. Also, your explanation I read elsewhere made me very aware of how someone could claim that an object of unknown origin could suddenly appear "soundlessly".

That left me a little confused when, after already giving up on filming another eclipse, the sky cleared and I hastily set up my tripod and camera. Admittedly, our of Panasonic VHS-C was never meant to be filming in night conditions or in that kind of weather but it was an historic night. There was not only an eclipse but also a Russian satellite with a decaying orbit that we were scheduled to take out if it looked like it would hit the mainland.

The reasonable explanation you gave as to an object seeming to make no noise had stuck whether I was thinking of it consciously or not. As you can see by this video, the only noise you hear (other than me because my wife had been outside shortly before) grows as the trailing jet approaches and fades as it recedes into the distance.

Peter Davenport dismissed it out-of-hand as "obviously" a satellite, everyone else I contacted ruled out the Space Shuttle, the ISS, the Hubble and everything else they could think of.

Since this was a last minute filming, I hadn't charged the battery and everyone I contacted was made aware that the time signature on the screen is 8 - 10 minutes off.

Something that EVERYONE guaranteed me was that it was NOT the Russian satellite!

So what the H*ll Was it??? Even though my camera and film were being used in a manner never intended, it is obviously not only much larger than the trailing jet, but it was totally soundless (that's why I yelled for my wife) and the brightest object in the sky at that time.

(For clarification, ONE of the three objects to the left of the Moon is a drop of dew on my lens. The other two are a planet and the star Antares...)

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


ZetaRidiculian...
Thank you for the reply, you make very convincing points...

I believe—though I am not 100% certain—that I understand your arguement, if it becomes apparent I have misunderstood, please do correct me.

Generally speaking, we all perceive these types of illusions the same way. Its pretty predictable actually. One of the most dramatic examples of "witnesses" being fooled is this video of David Blaine levitating. Watch peoples honest reactions to witnessing something unexplainable. Of course, David Blaine doesn't actually levitate.

Love David Blaine, after watching his shows, I even started trying to do card tricks - just to see which ones I could learn (learned I'm not good at card tricks).

From your video and research mentioned I must concur—human brains can misperceive ordinary things in strange and similar ways, making them seem extraordinary.

My only counter argument would be that this doesn't necessarily relate to UFO sightings.
David Blaine's video, as well as many of the "Brain Games" experiments—as they appear to my uneducated eyes—seem more like optical illusions than misperceptions.

Then there is the way which people can influence other peoples perceptions simply by suggesting it. For instance, there is an ambiguous object. Person A says to person B "I see a craft" Person B now sees a "craft". Its that simple. Try it sometime. Experiment on your family and friends!

Another good point. In the unexplained reports, however, there are cases, where multiple witnesses independantly report the same object similarly. Additionally, there are cases all around the world (USA, Europe, Australia, South America etc...) where the UFOs are reported to look and behave very similarly—regardless of differences in location, cultural surroundings, etc... To me, these patterns suggest a phenomenon independant of the misidentifications.

This, surely, is where your David Blaine argument would come into play. If the human brian mispercieves things in the same way, it would not matter how many people were observing or how independantly the observations were made—the case would still be one of misperception.

My counter argument folllows:

What we're dealing with above is some kind of mind trick, NOT a case of unreliable witness testimony. The witnesses can observe and perfectly describe exactly what is happening, and still be fooled. The brain may interperet the scenario as something that it is not, e.g. levitation, but this doesn't necessarily represent a case of unreliability on the part of the observers.

The observers see that his heels are off the ground. He is facing away from them at about a 45 degree angle. It appears that his toes are not touching the ground either, though they cannot see completely underneath his feet.

If this information was presented to an investigator, he/she could then determine (if familiar with such tricks) that Blaine was demonstrating an optical illusion. To the supposed investigator, such witness testimony was not in fact flawed, but helpfully and reliably accurate, allowing for a reasonable and rational explanation fitting the observations.

Simply because the witnesses were unaware such an effect could be produced, and thusly interpreted it as "levitation" doesn't mean their perceptions of the event were in error.

Such a situation is, according to my argument, not relatable to most UFO cases.

Consider the O'Hare case:
Nothing suggests (that I have seen) the witnesses would misidentify an IFO (weather balloon, strange cloud etc...) as exactly what they reported—which was:
-disc shaped craft
-silver/grey + metallic
-hovering, then shooting upwards at high speed
-cutting hole in the clouds

If there is an optical illusion/mind trick/whatever that can produce such effects, I apologize for my ignorance of it.

cheers

P.S.
Check the David Blaine parody... "What the eff?"

In the last few years amateur space observers and historians have been cataloguing worldwide reports of satellite reentries going back to the beginning of the space age, using newly-declassified detailed orbital data and much more precise and user friendly orbital prediction software. One of the unexpected spinoffs of this effort is the realization that the particular visual stimulus associated with night-time reentry of a large satellite -- especially a spent rocket booster with multiple structural components -- creates a stunning visual apparition that is often misinterpreted by witnesses around the world in much the same way. But the similarity of the perceived [but unreal] features seems to be in the cultural base of the witnesses, not in the original stimulus.

A lot more speculating and postulating and debating is needed over the significance of this 'accidental experiment set' where people are exposed to a stimulus of known physical properties, and then report -- often -- MORE than they actually saw.

BUT for the first time ever we can work with what is called a 'control experiment' or a 'calibration run' -- dozens of such runs, actually -- to find OUT how witnesses actually perceive once-in-a-lifetime visual stimuli, rather than imagining how WE think the witnesses OUGHT to perceive them.

The first report to look over is in Russian, but all that is important are the drawings. There are a hundred sketches in color based on witness reports over Ukraine in 1963 of what turned out to be a Soviet satellite rocket reentry [the report writers did not know this -- it was a classified military secret in 1963]. About half the witnesses saw what was really there -- a swarm of bright fireballs moving horizontally leaving streaks. But look at what the others 'saw' and reported: large structured objects, 'mother ships', artificial craft of non-human form. They were all watching the very same phenomenon.

October 30, 1963, Ukraine -- Kosmos-20 booster reentry perceived as structured UFO with windows
www.jamesoberg.com...

A broader view of the same phenomenon is in this recent report by Canadian space watcher Ted Molczan, and it describes where the work he and I were doing in parallel converged, and the possible implications of what we found.

Misperception of Satellite Re-Entries - Seeing is Not Necessarily Believing.
From: Ted Molczan
www.satobs.org...

People all over the planet -- the US, Canada, Bahamas, North Africa, Central Africa, Europe.... -- were seeing and reporting the same impressions of independent events of the same type. The fireball swarm from a documented satellite reentry was crossing the sky at the same moment in the same direction as what THEY reported. But these objects looked like "UFO mother ships". They glided silently. They were BIG -- hand size at arm's length, sometimes bigger. They often had rows of portholes. They were occasionally accompanied by EM effects; sometimes there were spotlights fanning out from them. On occasion, people spotted the forms of humanoids inside. We all know these kinds of stories.

I'm bold enough to suggest that this new data base, and a proper appreciation of its implications, may be profoundly important to finally understanding questions of witness perceptual accuracy that have been argued over fruitlessly all our lives.

Take a look, please.

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


You make some very valid points. I don't claim to have an answer though it is tricky to talk about this stuff without sounding like I am trying to explain this or any other case away.

My only counter argument would be that this doesn't necessarily relate to UFO sightings.

I think this makes a strong case for the kind of thing I am talking about. www.zipworld.com.au...
There is also, I believe, a very strong case that this type of thing has occurred many times. I see you are aware of the Yukon explanation -was going to link that thread but saw you posted there.

David Blaine's video, as well as many of the "Brain Games" experiments—as they appear to my uneducated eyes—seem more like optical illusions than misperceptions.

I am not sure where you would make that distinction between "optical illusion" and "misperception" but it is important to try to define and agree with what we are talking about. A common "misperception" is perceiving Venus is moving or flying. I used to think that was one of the lamest explanations for a UFO but I saw this first hand. Someone I was with was convinced that Venus was flying. I also would consider that an optical illusion. I think it has to do with how bright it is compared to other celestial bodies. A common misperception would be perceiving some debris as a wounded animal while driving at night. Would that qualify as an Illusion also? I don't see why not. Seeing three points of light as a solid triangular object is also a very common illusion and easy to demonstrate.

In the unexplained reports, however, there are cases, where multiple witnesses independantly report the same object similarly. Additionally, there are cases all around the world (USA, Europe, Australia, South America etc...) where the UFOs are reported to look and behave very similarly—regardless of differences in location, cultural surroundings, etc... To me, these patterns suggest a phenomenon independant of the misidentifications.

That may be the case. Do you have an example of two similar cases so I know what you mean? I think, in general, people will perceive things the same way.

The brain may interperet the scenario as something that it is not, e.g. levitation, but this doesn't necessarily represent a case of unreliability on the part of the observers.

Yes, I agree. The people that describe UFOs describe what they see. The brain interprets everything all the time constantly filling in information where there is none. Witnesses are not unreliable. They are humans.

Simply because the witnesses were unaware such an effect could be produced, and thusly interpreted it as "levitation" doesn't mean their perceptions of the event were in error.

True. I wouldn't use the word "error" either.

Such a situation is, according to my argument, not relatable to most UFO cases.

Consider the O'Hare case:
Nothing suggests (that I have seen) the witnesses would misidentify an IFO (weather balloon, strange cloud etc...) as exactly what they reported—which was:
-disc shaped craft
-silver/grey + metallic
-hovering, then shooting upwards at high speed
-cutting hole in the clouds

If there is an optical illusion/mind trick/whatever that can produce such effects, I apologize for my ignorance of it.

and I respect that view. Personally, I am not convinced that its not relatable to UFO cases. To me its a very intriguing perspective that people can make a complete mythology out of what seems to me to be smoke and mirrors. I just don't think we know enough yet to determine that such a thing can be ruled out.

"What the eff?"

Nice chat, next time we call each other names

What does Brain Games or tricks of perception have to do with anything?

There are mountains of sightings that have been going on for years and of course some of these sightings people were mistaken.

There are people that think they see weather balloons and are mistaken.

There are people who think they see Chinese Lanterns and are mistaken.

This is the point, all of these eyewitness and close encounter cases are not from people who are mistaken. That's just silly on it's face.

The fact is debunkers have to put every eyewitness into a monolithic box of stupidity.

Herein lies the problem with debunkers. They have to make it seem that every eyewitness was either an idiot, mistaken or delusional. We know this isn't the case because that's not how it works with eyewitnesses. Some eyewitnesses are very accurate and they describe exactly what they saw.

So a debunker wants you to give more weight to their opinion over a credible eyewitness because they watch Brain Games lol.

reply to post by neoholographic

What does Brain Games or tricks of perception have to do with anything?

You will have to figure that out on your own if are actually interested in this topic. Seem more interested in silly rants though.

So a debunker wants you to give more weight to their opinion over a credible eyewitness because they watch Brain Games lol.

You are not really paying attention. It has NOTHING to do with debunking anything or giving more weight to anyone's opinion. Let me explain it to you in simple terms. There is an unknown phenomenon. I believe that understanding how people perceive will help understand the phenomenon that is based largely on perception why don't you? People shouldn't be giving more weight to me or Jim Oberg or anyone else. People should feel free to explore the topic as they wish and make up their own minds.

The real question is why do you discourage people from exploring this aspect of this phenomenon? Seriously? Why is there a constant discouragement? I don't get it. What is your point? What is your deal? What good is it doing other than serving your own ego? How is calling people debunkers and misrepresenting their points helping anything?

reply to post by neoholographic

There are people that think they see weather balloons and are mistaken.

There are people who think they see Chinese Lanterns and are mistaken.

Very rare cases, that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
If you're suggesting that somehow people are misidentifying alien craft as weather balloons—and not the other way around—you really need to rethink your reasoning process.

JimOberg and ZetaRediculian, thank you for the posts, I will respond tomorrow after I get some sleep... It's late here...

cheers all

neoholographic
.....
This is the point, all of these eyewitness and close encounter cases are not from people who are mistaken. That's just silly on it's face.

The fact is debunkers have to put every eyewitness into a monolithic box of stupidity.

Herein lies the problem with debunkers. They have to make it seem that every eyewitness was either an idiot, mistaken or delusional. We know this isn't the case because that's not how it works with eyewitnesses. Some eyewitnesses are very accurate and they describe exactly what they saw.

So a debunker wants you to give more weight to their opinion over a credible eyewitness because they watch Brain Games lol.

I don't think so.

First, we've seen plenty of phenomena for which there are thousands or even millions of reports, for which zero are accurate -- communications with dead people, for example, or human levitation, or fairies, or Elvis sightings.

Second, you completely, let me say again, COMPLETELY misunderstand the process of misperception. It is usually NOT the result of lack of intelligence, or sanity, or rationality.

It is the natural result of the proper functioning of recognition algorithms under unusual inputs, and if intelligence has anything to do with it, smarter and more experienced people are MORE vulnerable to it, not less. We have evolved to favor -- i.e., let survive long enough to reproduce -- people whose minds use their accumulated life experiences to fill-in incompletenesses and uncertainties around fragmentary perceptions in order to quickly-enough recognize and react to potential hazards.

When you allege insults to people who misperceive you throw ego-defense into the analysis, and that's guaranty of heat, not light. It's as if you wanted people to NOT understand the process, to defend your own views. But I do not allege that.

Your comment does suggest to me that your expressed opinion reflects an inadequate appreciation of the fundamental facts of the issue under dispute. This is remediable. Nobody starts out 'smart' on this subtle question. We are here to help.

reply to post by JimOberg

It is the natural result of the proper functioning of recognition algorithms under unusual inputs, and if intelligence has anything to do with it, smarter and more experienced people are MORE vulnerable to it, not less. We have evolved to favor -- i.e., let survive long enough to reproduce -- people whose minds use their accumulated life experiences to fill-in incompletenesses and uncertainties around fragmentary perceptions in order to quickly-enough recognize and react to potential hazards.

in sports psychology, its called "visualization". A quarterback that can perceive where their receivers are with minimal information, a baseball player perceives exactly where a curve ball will be. Avoiding an accident because you saw the car out of the corner of your eye. This system can be incredibly accurate. We do this constantly.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by JimOberg

 

It is the natural result of the proper functioning of recognition algorithms under unusual inputs, and if intelligence has anything to do with it, smarter and more experienced people are MORE vulnerable to it, not less. We have evolved to favor -- i.e., let survive long enough to reproduce -- people whose minds use their accumulated life experiences to fill-in incompletenesses and uncertainties around fragmentary perceptions in order to quickly-enough recognize and react to potential hazards.

in sports psychology, its called "visualization". A quarterback that can perceive where their receivers are with minimal information, a baseball player perceives exactly where a curve ball will be. Avoiding an accident because you saw the car out of the corner of your eye. This system can be incredibly accurate. We do this constantly.

Yep...very accurate in some instances; it's called Bayesian Inference. A set of technique and method that applies itself quite nicely to just plan living, playing, working, etc. and even to advanced computational models, AI, and common everyday stuff as well.

It seems that advanced sentient creatures might be labeled "Inference Engines".